Ever wondered why some startup boards feel like a dream team while others turn into nightmare scenarios? A provocative claim by Vinod Khosla suggests that 70% of VCs actually destroy value for their portfolio companies. Let's dive into what makes the difference between a value-adding investor and one who becomes a liability.

This Week On Practical Nerds - tl;dr

Knowledge is the only thing that scales in venture capital

Most investors would create more value by simply staying out of the way

Chase people with equity ownership not corporate employees in VC firms

🎧 Listen To This Practical Nerds Episode

Knowledge Is The Only Thing That Scales In Venture Capital

How Do You Build Long-lasting Value In Venture Capital?

The venture capital industry faces a fundamental challenge: it's inherently unscalable. Generational companies don't repeat, and the number of truly exceptional opportunities is substantially smaller than the amount of capital available. This creates an uncomfortable dynamic where many VCs feel pressured to demonstrate their value, often leading to detrimental outcomes.

In this environment, knowledge emerges as the only truly scalable asset. Unlike brand recognition or network effects, which can be diluted through overuse, deep domain expertise compounds over time. This becomes particularly crucial in specialized sectors like construction technology, where general B2C or even broad B2B experience can lead to misguided assumptions.

The industry often propagates the myth that VC firms' brands, networks, or "platform services" are what founders should optimize for. However, these elements often prove far less valuable than advertised. A telling anecdote shared in the episode involves a former CEO of an $80 billion revenue company who explained why he couldn't make introductions every week – it would dilute the value of his network and recommendations.

Key Insight: The real value in venture capital comes from specialized knowledge that can be consistently applied to help companies navigate their specific market challenges.

Most Investors Would Create More Value By Simply Staying Out Of Way

What Makes The Difference Between Top And Bottom Tier Investors?

According to Vinod Khosla's framework, only 10% of VCs add positive value, 20% add no value, and a staggering 70% actually subtract value. This creates an interesting paradox: many investors could dramatically improve their performance by simply doing less.

The phenomenon stems from what behavioral economists call the "illusion of action" – the misguided belief that doing something is always better than doing nothing. In venture capital, this often manifests as investors feeling compelled to provide input or demonstrate their value, even in areas where they lack genuine expertise.

This drive to prove oneself as a top-tier investor ironically often pushes them into the bottom 70%. The most successful investors typically demonstrate remarkable self-awareness about their limitations and focus their contributions only on areas where they have genuine expertise.

Key Insight: The path to being a top-quartile investor often starts with the humility to recognize when staying out of the way is the best form of support.

Chase People With Equity Ownership Not Corporate Employees In VC

How Do Incentives Shape Investor Behavior?

One of the most overlooked aspects of selecting co-investors is understanding their personal incentives. The episode highlights a stark contrast between equity owners in VC firms versus employed investors, particularly in terms of their decision-making processes and alignment with founder interests.

A founder of a successful unicorn shared that among their many top-tier investors, only one stood out – the firm where they interacted with actual owners rather than corporate employees. The difference manifested in faster decision-making, more authentic relationships, and greater accountability.

Employed investors often face pressure to chase "news" – either for internal promotion or to secure offers from other firms. This can lead to behaviors that prioritize short-term optics over long-term company building. Additionally, the response time to founder requests serves as a telling indicator of an investor's priorities and organizational context.

Key Insight: The ownership structure and incentives of your investors often predict their behavior more accurately than their brand or stated investment thesis.

Conclusion: The Co-Investor Selection Framework

• Prioritize selecting individuals over brands
• Evaluate their ability to acknowledge what they don't know
• Look for equity owners who demonstrate founder-like ownership
• Measure response time and accessibility as key indicators
• Seek partners who can articulate their boundaries and limitations

You Can Find More Analysis On The Practical Nerds Podcast

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1Q86tEwusNGwAmRdDqjFL4

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/practical-nerds/id1689880222

Foundamental: https://www.foundamental.com/

Subscribe to the Newsletter: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/practical-nerds-7180899738613882881/

Follow The Practical Nerds

Patric Hellermann: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aecvc/

Shub Bhattacharya: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shubhankar-bhattacharya-a1063a3/

#VentureCapital #StartupAdvice #InvestorRelations #CoInvestors #VCStrategy #FounderAdvice #StartupBoards #InvestorDiligence